Absence seizures and carbamazepine in adults

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in 2017. Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for focal onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however, a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of 12 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, eventrate, zonisamide, eslicarbazepine acetate, lacosamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with focal onset seizures (simple focal, complex focal or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 12 April 2021: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to April 09, 2021). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) and network meta-analysis (NMA) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to treatment failure', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', and 'time to first seizure post-randomisation'. We performed frequentist NMA to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 12 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct 'pairwise' estimates and NMA results via node splitting. Results are presented as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and we assessed the certainty of the evidence using the CiNeMA approach, based on the GRADE framework. We have also provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were provided for at least one outcome of this review for 14,789 out of a total of 22,049 eligible participants (67% of total data) from 39 out of the 89 eligible trials (43% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 50 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions. No IPD were available from a single trial of eslicarbazepine acetate, so this AED could not be included in the NMA. Network meta-analysis showed high-certainty evidence that for our primary outcome, 'time to treatment failure', for individuals with focal seizures; lamotrigine performs better than most other treatments in terms of treatment failure for any reason and due to adverse events, including the other first-line treatment carbamazepine; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for lamotrigine versus: eventrate 1.01 (0.88 to 1.20), zonisamide 1.18 (0.96 to 1.44), lacosamide 1.19 (0.90 to 1.58), carbamazepine 1.26 (1.10 to 1.44), oxcarbazepine 1.30 (1.02 to 1.66), sodium valproate 1.35 (1.09 to 1.69), phenytoin 1.44 (1.11 to 1.85), topiramate 1.50 (1.23 to 1.81), gabapentin 1.53 (1.26 to 1.85), phenobarbitone 1.97 (1.45 to 2.67). No significant difference between lamotrigine and eventrate was shown for any treatment failure outcome, and both AEDs seemed to perform better than all other AEDs. For people with generalised onset seizures, evidence was more limited and of moderate certainty; no other treatment performed better than first-line treatment sodium valproate, but there were no differences between sodium valproate, lamotrigine or eventrate in terms of treatment failure; HRs (95% CIs) for treatment failure for any reason for sodium valproate versus: lamotrigine 1.06 (0.81 to 1.37), eventrate 1.13 (0.89 to 1.42), gabapentin 1.13 (0.61 to 2.11), phenytoin 1.17 (0.80 to 1.73), oxcarbazepine 1.24 (0.72 to 2.14), topiramate 1.37 (1.06 to 1.77), carbamazepine 1.52 (1.18 to 1.96), phenobarbitone 2.13 (1.20 to 3.79), lacosamide 2.64 (1.14 to 6.09). Network meta-analysis also showed high-certainty evidence that for secondary remission outcomes, few notable differences were shown for either seizure type; for individuals with focal seizures, carbamazepine performed better than gabapentin (12-month remission) and sodium valproate (six-month remission). No differences between lamotrigine and any AED were shown for individuals with focal seizures, or between sodium valproate and other AEDs for individuals with generalised onset seizures. Network meta-analysis also showed high- to moderate-certainty evidence that, for 'time to first seizure,' in general, the earliest licensed treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for individuals with focal seizures; phenobarbitone performed better than both first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine. There were no notable differences between the newer drugs (oxcarbazepine, topiramate, gabapentin, eventrate, zonisamide and lacosamide) for either seizure type. Generally, direct evidence (where available) and network meta-analysis estimates were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping. There was no important indication of inconsistency between direct and network meta-analysis results. The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders; however, reporting of adverse events was highly variable across AEDs and across studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-certainty evidence demonstrates that for people with focal onset seizures, current first-line treatment options carbamazepine and lamotrigine, as well as newer drug eventrate, show the best profile in terms of treatment failure and seizure control as first-line treatments. For people with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types), current first-line treatment sodium valproate has the best profile compared to all other treatments, but lamotrigine and eventrate would be the most suitable alternative first-line treatments, particularly for those for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option. Further evidence from randomised controlled trials recruiting individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other seizure types) is needed.

Carbamazepine versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in 2002 and last updated in 2017. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenytoin are commonly-used broad spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for focal onset seizures in the USA and Europe. Phenytoin is no longer considered a first-line treatment, due to concerns over adverse events associated with its use, but the drug is still commonly used in low- to middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenytoin in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these trials are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with carbamazepine compared with phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 13 August 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset (tonic-clonic) seizures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were available for 595 participants out of 1102 eligible individuals, from four out of 11 trials (i.e. 54% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, a HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, a HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. Most participants included in analysis (78%) were classified as experiencing focal onset seizures at baseline and only 22% were classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures; the results of this review are therefore mainly applicable to individuals with focal onset seizures.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 0.94, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.26, moderate-certainty evidence); time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 0.99, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.41, moderate-certainty evidence); both showing no clear difference between the drugs and time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 546 participants: 1.27, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.86, moderate-certainty evidence), showing that treatment failure due to adverse events may occur earlier on carbamazepine than phenytoin, but we cannot rule out a slight advantage to carbamazepine or no difference between the drugs.For our secondary outcomes (pooled HRs adjusted for seizure type), we did not find any clear differences between carbamazepine and phenytoin: time to first seizure post-randomisation (582 participants): 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.40, moderate-certainty evidence); time to 12-month remission (551 participants): 1.00, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.26, moderate-certainty evidence); and time to six-month remission (551 participants): 0.90, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.12, moderate-certainty evidence).For all outcomes, results for individuals with focal onset seizures were similar to overall results (moderate-certainty evidence), and results for the small subgroup of individuals with generalised onset seizures were imprecise, so we cannot rule out an advantage to either drug, or no difference between drugs (low-certainty evidence). There was also evidence that misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review, particularly for the outcome 'time to treatment failure'. Heterogeneity was present in analysis of 'time to first seizure' for individuals with generalised onset seizures, which could not be explained by subgroup analysis or sensitivity analyses.Limited information was available about adverse events in the trials and we could not compare the rates of adverse events between carbamazepine and phenytoin. Some adverse events reported on both drugs were abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, drowsiness, motor and cognitive disturbances, dysmorphic side effects (such as rash).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence provided by this systematic review does not show any differences between carbamazepine and phenytoin in terms of effectiveness (retention) or efficacy (seizure recurrence and seizure remission) for individuals with focal onset or generalised onset seizures.However, some of the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and inconsistencies, which may have had an impact on the results of this review. We therefore do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a person with newly-onset seizures. We did not find any evidence to support or refute current treatment policies. We implore that future trials be designed to the highest quality possible, with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Topiramate versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 12, 2016. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy, the majority of which may be able to achieve remission with a single antiepileptic drug (AED).The correct choice of first-line AED for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance and should be based on the highest-quality evidence available regarding the potential benefits and harms of various treatments for an individual.Topiramate and carbamazepine are commonly used AEDs. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of results of outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability, and may help inform a choice between the two drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with topiramate compared with carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (Ovid); ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) to 22 May 2018. We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monotherapy with either topiramate or carbamazepine in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were available for 1151 of 1239 eligible individuals from two of three eligible studies (93% of the potential data). A small proportion of individuals recruited into these trials had 'unclassified seizures;' for analysis purposes, these individuals are grouped with those with generalised onset seizures. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine, and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for topiramate.The main overall results for the primary outcome, time to treatment failure, given as pooled HR adjusted for seizure type were: time to failure for any reason related to treatment 1.16 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.38); time to failure due to adverse events 1.02 (95% CI 0.82 to 1.27); and time to failure due to lack of efficacy 1.46 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.98). Overall results for secondary outcomes were time to first seizure 1.11 (95% CI 0.96 to 1.29); and time to six-month remission 0.88 (0.76 to 1.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the drugs. A statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to 12-month remission: 0.84 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.99).The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 81% of individuals included within the analysis experienced seizures of this type at baseline. For individuals with focal onset seizures, a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to failure for any reason related to treatment (HR 1.21, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.46), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (HR 1.47, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.02), and time to 12-month remission (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.99). There was no statistically significant difference between topiramate and carbamazepine for 'time to first seizure' and 'time to six-month remission'.Evidence for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (9% of participants contributing to the analysis), and unclassified seizure types (10% of participants contributing to the analysis) was very limited; no statistically significant differences were found but CIs were wide; therefore we cannot exclude an advantage to either drug, or a difference between drugs.The most commonly reported adverse events with both drugs were drowsiness or fatigue, "pins and needles" (tingling sensation), headache, gastrointestinal disturbance and anxiety or depression. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.We judged the methodological quality of the included trials generally to be good; however, there was some evidence that the open-label design of the larger of the two trials may have influenced the treatment failure rate within the trial. Hence, we judged the certainty of the evidence for treatment failure to be moderate for individuals with focal onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the certainty of evidence from this review to be high for individuals with focal onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset or unclassified seizures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For individuals with focal onset seizures, there is moderate-certainty evidence that carbamazepine is less likely to be withdrawn and high-certainty evidence that 12-month remission will be achieved earlier than with topiramate. We did not find any differences between the drugs in terms of the other outcomes measured in the review and for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures or unclassified epilepsy; however, we encourage caution in the interpretation of results including small numbers of participants with these seizure types.Future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible and take into consideration masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the Cochrane Review previously published in 2016. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenobarbitone are commonly used broad-spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for focal onset seizures, and is used in the USA and Europe. Phenobarbitone is no longer considered a first-line treatment because of concerns over associated adverse events, particularly documented behavioural adverse events in children treated with the drug. However, phenobarbitone is still commonly used in low- and middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these trials are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised), or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 24 May 2018: the Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), which includes Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialized Register and CENTRAL; MEDLINE; the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov); and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or phenobarbitone in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD), review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure. Our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 trials in this review and IPD were available for 836 individuals out of 1455 eligible individuals from six trials, 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenobarbitone and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine.Results for the primary outcome of the review were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 676 participants: 0.66, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.86, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 619 participants: 0.69, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.97, low-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 487 participants: 0.54, 95% CI 0.38 to 0.78, moderate-quality evidence), showing a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to phenobarbitone.For our secondary outcomes, we did not find any statistically significant differences between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone: time to first seizure post-randomisation (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 822 participants: 1.13, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.38, moderate-quality evidence), time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 683 participants: 1.09, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.40, low-quality evidence), and time to six-month remission pooled HR adjusted for seizure type for 683 participants: 1.01, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.24, low-quality evidence).Results of these secondary outcomes suggest that there may be an association between treatment effect in terms of efficacy and seizure type; that is, that participants with focal onset seizures experience seizure recurrence later and hence remission of seizures earlier on phenobarbitone than carbamazepine, and vice versa for individuals with generalised seizures. It is likely that the analyses of these outcomes were confounded by several methodological issues and misclassification of seizure type, which could have introduced the heterogeneity and bias into the results of this review.Limited information was available regarding adverse events in the trials and we could not compare the rates of adverse events between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone. Some adverse events reported on both drugs were abdominal pain, nausea, and vomiting, drowsiness, motor and cognitive disturbances, dysmorphic side effects (such as rash), and behavioural side effects in three paediatric trials.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-quality evidence from this review suggests that carbamazepine is likely to be a more effective drug than phenobarbitone in terms of treatment retention (treatment failures due to lack of efficacy or adverse events or both). Moderate- to low-quality evidence from this review also suggests an association between treatment efficacy and seizure type in terms of seizure recurrence and seizure remission, with an advantage for phenobarbitone for focal onset seizures and an advantage for carbamazepine for generalised onset seizures.However, some of the trials contributing to the analyses had methodological inadequacies and inconsistencies that may have impacted upon the results of this review. Therefore, we do not suggest that results of this review alone should form the basis of a treatment choice for a patient with newly onset seizures. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Sodium valproate versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free, and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, sodium valproate and phenytoin are commonly used antiepileptic drugs for monotherapy treatment. It is generally believed that phenytoin is more effective for focal onset seizures, and that sodium pvalproate is more effective for generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types). This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons. This is the latest updated version of the review first published in 2001, and updated in 2013 and 2016.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure of sodium valproate compared to phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures or generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP on 19 February 2018. We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing monotherapy with either sodium valproate or phenytoin in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month, and 12-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 11 trials in this review and IPD were available for 669 individuals out of 1119 eligible individuals from five out of 11 trials, 60% of the potential data. Results apply to focal onset seizures (simple, complex and secondary generalised tonic-clonic seizures), and generalised tonic-clonic seizures, but not other generalised seizure types (absence or myoclonus seizure types). For remission outcomes, a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin, and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes a HR of less than 1 indicates an advantage for sodium valproate.The main overall results were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.27; 5 studies; 528 participants; moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 0.77, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.37; 4 studies; 418 participants; moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR for all participants 1.16 (95% CI 0.71 to 1.89; 5 studies; 451 participants; moderate-quality evidence). These results suggest that treatment failure for any reason related to treatment and treatment failure due to adverse events may occur earlier on phenytoin compared to sodium valproate, while treatment failure due to lack of efficacy may occur earlier on sodium valproate than phenytoin; however none of these results were statistically significant.Results for time to first seizure (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; 5 studies; 639 participants; low-quality evidence) suggest that first seizure recurrence may occur slightly earlier on sodium valproate compared to phenytoin. There were no clear differences between drugs in terms of time to 12-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 1.02, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.28; 4 studies; 514 participants; moderate-quality evidence) and time to six-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.27; 5 studies; 639 participants; moderate-quality evidence).Limited information was available regarding adverse events in the trials and we could not make comparisons between the rates of adverse events on sodium valproate and phenytoin. Some adverse events reported with both drugs were drowsiness, rash, dizziness, nausea and gastrointestinal problems. Weight gain was also reported with sodium valproate and gingival hypertrophy/hyperplasia was reported on phenytoin.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however four out of the five trials providing IPD for analysis were of an open-label design, therefore all results were at risk of detection bias. There was also evidence that misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review, particularly for the outcome 'time to first seizure' and heterogeneity was present in analysis of treatment failure outcomes which could not be explained by subgroup analysis by epilepsy type or by sensitivity analysis for misclassification of seizure type. Therefore, for treatment failure outcomes we judged the quality of the evidence to be moderate to low, for 'time to first seizure' we judged the quality of the evidence to be low, and for remission outcomes we judged the quality of the evidence to be moderate.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence that a significant difference exists between valproate and phenytoin for any of the outcomes examined in this review. However detection bias, classification bias and heterogeneity may have impacted on the results of this review. We did not find any outright evidence to support or refute current treatment policies. We recommend that future trials be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 11, 2006 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free, and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.The correct choice of first-line AED for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AEDs for an individual is made using the highest quality evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of the various treatments.Carbamazepine or lamotrigine are recommended as first-line treatments for new onset focal seizures and as a first- or second-line treatment for generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of the results for outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability and may assist in informing a choice between the two drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to treatment failure, remission and first seizure with lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with focal onset seizures (simple or complex focal and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the first searches for this review in 1997. For the most recent update, we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Clinical Trials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 26 February 2018, without language restrictions SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine in children or adults with focal onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to treatment failure and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post randomisation, time to six-month, 12-month and 24-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 trials in this review. Individual participant data were available for 2572 participants out of 3787 eligible individuals from nine out of 14 trials: 68% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for carbamazepine; and for first seizure and treatment failure outcomes, a HR of less than one indicated an advantage for lamotrigine.The main overall results were: time to treatment failure for any reason related to treatment (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.71, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.82, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to adverse events (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.55 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.66, moderate-quality evidence), time to treatment failure due to lack of efficacy (pooled HR for all participants: 1.03 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.41), moderate-quality evidence) showing a significant advantage for lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine in terms of treatment failure for any reason related to treatment and treatment failure due to adverse events, but no different between drugs for treatment failure due to lack of efficacy.Time to first seizure (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 1.26, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.41, high-quality evidence) and time to six-month remission (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type: 0.86, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.97, high-quality evidence), showed a significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to lamotrigine for first seizure and six-month remission. We found no difference between the drugs for time to 12-month remission (pooled HR for all participants 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07, high-quality evidence) or time to 24-month remission (HR for all participants 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25, high-quality evidence), however only two trials followed up participants for more than one year so evidence is limited.The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with focal onset seizures; 88% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. Up to 50% of the limited number of individuals classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures at baseline may have had their seizure type misclassified, therefore we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review for individuals with generalised onset seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events for both of the drugs across all of the included trials were dizziness, fatigue, gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and skin problems. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however there is some evidence that the design choice of masked or open-label treatment may have influenced the treatment failure and withdrawal rates of the trials. Hence, we judged the quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment failure to be moderate for individuals with focal onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the quality of evidence to be high for individuals with focal onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset seizures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate quality evidence indicates that treatment failure for any reason related to treatment or due to adverse events occurs significantly earlier on carbamazepine than lamotrigine, but the results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. The choice between these first-line treatments must be made with careful consideration. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for partial onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, remission and first seizure of 10 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, and two clinical trials registers. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. The date of the most recent search was 27 July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review and network meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'occurrence of adverse events'. We presented all time-to-event outcomes as Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons between drugs within trials to obtain 'direct' treatment effect estimates and we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 10 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct estimates and network meta-analysis via node splitting. Due to variability in methods and detail of reporting adverse events, we have not performed an analysis. We have provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD was provided for at least one outcome of this review for 12,391 out of a total of 17,961 eligible participants (69% of total data) from 36 out of the 77 eligible trials (47% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 41 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions.We were able to calculate direct treatment effect estimates for between half and two thirds of comparisons across the outcomes of the review, however for many of the comparisons, data were contributed by only a single trial or by a small number of participants, so confidence intervals of estimates were wide.Network meta-analysis showed that for the primary outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment,' for individuals with partial seizures; levetiracetam performed (statistically) significantly better than current first-line treatment carbamazepine and other current first-line treatment lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam); carbamazepine performed significantly better than gabapentin and phenobarbitone (high-quality evidence). For individuals with generalised onset seizures, first-line treatment sodium valproate performed significantly better than carbamazepine, topiramate and phenobarbitone (moderate- to high-quality evidence). Furthermore, for both partial and generalised onset seizures, the earliest licenced treatment, phenobarbitone seems to perform worse than all other treatments (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Network meta-analysis also showed that for secondary outcomes 'Time to 12-month remission of seizures' and 'Time to six-month remission of seizures,' few notable differences were shown for either partial or generalised seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence). For secondary outcome 'Time to first seizure,' for individuals with partial seizures; phenobarbitone performed significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; carbamazepine performed significantly better than sodium valproate, gabapentin and lamotrigine. Phenytoin also performed significantly better than lamotrigine (high-quality evidence). In general, the earliest licenced treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for both seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Generally, direct evidence and network meta-analysis estimates (direct plus indirect evidence) were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping.The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the high-quality evidence provided by this review supports current guidance (e.g. NICE) that carbamazepine and lamotrigine are suitable first-line treatments for individuals with partial onset seizures and also demonstrates that levetiracetam may be a suitable alternative. High-quality evidence from this review also supports the use of sodium valproate as the first-line treatment for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types) and also demonstrates that lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be suitable alternatives to either of these first-line treatments, particularly for those of childbearing potential, for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option due to teratogenicity.

Antiepileptic drug monotherapy for epilepsy: a network meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition with a worldwide prevalence of around 1%. Approximately 60% to 70% of people with epilepsy will achieve a longer-term remission from seizures, and most achieve that remission shortly after starting antiepileptic drug treatment. Most people with epilepsy are treated with a single antiepileptic drug (monotherapy) and current guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the United Kingdom for adults and children recommend carbamazepine or lamotrigine as first-line treatment for partial onset seizures and sodium valproate for generalised onset seizures; however a range of other antiepileptic drug (AED) treatments are available, and evidence is needed regarding their comparative effectiveness in order to inform treatment choices.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, remission and first seizure of 10 AEDs (carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbitone, oxcarbazepine, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate, levetiracetam, zonisamide) currently used as monotherapy in children and adults with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial or secondary generalised) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types (absence, myoclonus).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Epilepsy's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and SCOPUS, and two clinical trials registers. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field. The date of the most recent search was 27 July 2016.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials of a monotherapy design in adults or children with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review and network meta-analysis. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'occurrence of adverse events'. We presented all time-to-event outcomes as Cox proportional hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We performed pairwise meta-analysis of head-to-head comparisons between drugs within trials to obtain 'direct' treatment effect estimates and we performed frequentist network meta-analysis to combine direct evidence with indirect evidence across the treatment network of 10 drugs. We investigated inconsistency between direct estimates and network meta-analysis via node splitting. Due to variability in methods and detail of reporting adverse events, we have not performed an analysis. We have provided a narrative summary of the most commonly reported adverse events.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD was provided for at least one outcome of this review for 12,391 out of a total of 17,961 eligible participants (69% of total data) from 36 out of the 77 eligible trials (47% of total trials). We could not include IPD from the remaining 41 trials in analysis for a variety of reasons, such as being unable to contact an author or sponsor to request data, data being lost or no longer available, cost and resources required to prepare data being prohibitive, or local authority or country-specific restrictions.We were able to calculate direct treatment effect estimates for between half and two thirds of comparisons across the outcomes of the review, however for many of the comparisons, data were contributed by only a single trial or by a small number of participants, so confidence intervals of estimates were wide.Network meta-analysis showed that for the primary outcome 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment,' for individuals with partial seizures; levetiracetam performed (statistically) significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; lamotrigine performed better than all other treatments (aside from levetiracetam), and carbamazepine performed significantly better than gabapentin and phenobarbitone (high-quality evidence). For individuals with generalised onset seizures, first-line treatment sodium valproate performed significantly better than carbamazepine, topiramate and phenobarbitone (moderate- to high-quality evidence). Furthermore, for both partial and generalised onset seizures, the earliest licenced treatment, phenobarbitone seems to perform worse than all other treatments (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Network meta-analysis also showed that for secondary outcomes 'Time to 12-month remission of seizures' and 'Time to six-month remission of seizures,' few notable differences were shown for either partial or generalised seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence). For secondary outcome 'Time to first seizure,' for individuals with partial seizures; phenobarbitone performed significantly better than both current first-line treatments carbamazepine and lamotrigine; carbamazepine performed significantly better than sodium valproate, gabapentin and lamotrigine. Phenytoin also performed significantly better than lamotrigine (high-quality evidence). In general, the earliest licenced treatments (phenytoin and phenobarbitone) performed better than the other treatments for both seizure types (moderate- to high-quality evidence).Generally, direct evidence and network meta-analysis estimates (direct plus indirect evidence) were numerically similar and consistent with confidence intervals of effect sizes overlapping.The most commonly reported adverse events across all drugs were drowsiness/fatigue, headache or migraine, gastrointestinal disturbances, dizziness/faintness and rash or skin disorders.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the high-quality evidence provided by this review supports current guidance (e.g. NICE) that carbamazepine and lamotrigine are suitable first-line treatments for individuals with partial onset seizures and also demonstrates that levetiracetam may be a suitable alternative. High-quality evidence from this review also supports the use of sodium valproate as the first-line treatment for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types) and also demonstrates that lamotrigine and levetiracetam would be suitable alternatives to either of these first-line treatments, particularly for those of childbearing potential, for whom sodium valproate may not be an appropriate treatment option due to teratogenicity.

Carbamazepine versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review published in Issue 2, 2002 and its subsequent updates in 2010 and 2015.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which recurrent, unprovoked seizures are caused by abnormal electrical discharges from the brain. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenytoin are commonly-used broad spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for partial onset seizures in the USA and Europe. Phenytoin is no longer considered a first-line treatment due to concerns over adverse events associated with its use, but the drug is still commonly used in low- to middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenytoin in individual trials, although the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide. Differences in efficacy may therefore be shown by synthesising the data of the individual trials.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to withdrawal, six- and 12-month remission, and first seizure with carbamazepine compared to phenytoin, used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial, or secondarily generalised tonic-clonic seizures), or generalised tonic-clonic seizures, with or without other generalised seizure types.

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (1st November 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 1st November 2016), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 1 November 2016), ClinicalTrials.gov (1 November 2016), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP, 1st November 2016). Previously we also searched SCOPUS (1823 to 16th September 2014) as an alternative to Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures, comparing carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This is an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, and our secondary outcomes were time to six-month remission, time to 12-month remission, and time to first seizure post-randomisation. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were available for 595 participants out of 1192 eligible individuals, from four out of 12 trials (i.e. 50% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR greater than 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. The methodological quality of the four studies providing IPD was generally good and we rated it at low risk of bias overall in the analyses.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were time to withdrawal of allocated treatment: 1.04 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.39; three trials, 546 participants); time to 12-month remission: 1.01 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.31; three trials, 551 participants); time to six-month remission: 1.11 (95% CI 0.89 to 1.37; three trials, 551 participants); and time to first seizure: 0.85 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.04; four trials, 582 participants). The results suggest no overall statistically significant difference between the drugs for these outcomes. There is some evidence of an advantage for phenytoin for individuals with generalised onset seizures for our primary outcome (time to withdrawal of allocated treatment): pooled HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.96; two trials, 118 participants); and a statistical interaction between treatment effect and epilepsy type (partial versus generalised) for this outcome (P = 0.02). However, misclassification of seizure type for up to 48 individuals (32% of those with generalised epilepsy) may have confounded the results of this review. Despite concerns over side effects leading to the withdrawal of phenytoin as a first-line treatment in the USA and Europe, we found no evidence that phenytoin is more likely to be associated with serious side effects than carbamazepine; 26 individuals withdrew from 290 randomised (9%) to carbamazepine due to adverse effects, compared to 12 out of 299 (4%) randomised to phenytoin from four studies conducted in the USA and Europe (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80, P = 0.014). We rated the quality of the evidence as low to moderate according to GRADE criteria, due to imprecision and potential misclassification of seizure type.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence for a statistically significant difference between carbamazepine and phenytoin for the efficacy outcomes examined in this review, but CIs are wide and we cannot exclude the possibility of important differences. There is no evidence in this review that phenytoin is more strongly associated with serious adverse events than carbamazepine. There is some evidence that people with generalised seizures may be less likely to withdraw early from phenytoin than from carbamazepine, but misclassification of seizure type may have impacted upon our results. We recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review, and do not recommend that our results alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenytoin. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible, with considerations of allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane Review, first published in Issue 1, 2003 and updated in 2015. This review is one in a series of Cochrane Reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenobarbitone are commonly used broad-spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for partial onset seizures, and is used in the USA and Europe. Phenobarbitone is no longer considered a first-line treatment because of concerns over associated adverse events, particularly documented behavioural adverse events in children treated with the drug. However, phenobarbitone is still commonly used in low- and middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to withdrawal, remission, and first seizure of carbamazepine compared with phenobarbitone when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

For the latest update, we searched the following databases on 18 August 2016: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE (Ovid, from 1946), the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Previously we also searched SCOPUS (from 1823) as an alternative to Embase, but this is no longer necessary, because randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs in Embase are now included in CENTRAL. We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenobarbitone monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to achieve 12-month remission', 'time to achieve six-month remission', 'time to first seizure post-randomisation', and 'adverse events'. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with the generic inverse variance method used to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were available for 836 participants out of 1455 eligible individuals from six out of 13 trials; 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for phenobarbitone, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type, 95% CI) were HR 1.50 for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (95% CI 1.15 to 1.95; P = 0.003); HR 0.93 for time to achieve 12-month remission (95% CI 0.72 to 1.20; P = 0.57); HR 0.99 for time to achieve six-month remission (95% CI 0.80 to 1.23; P = 0.95); and HR 0.87 for time to first seizure (95% CI 0.72 to 1.06; P = 0.18). Results suggest an advantage for carbamazepine over phenobarbitone in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and no statistically significant evidence between the drugs for the other outcomes. We found evidence of a statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (Chi² test for subgroup differences P = 0.03), where phenobarbitone was favoured for partial onset seizures (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96; P = 0.02) and carbamazepine was favoured for generalised onset seizures (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.77; P = 0.27). We found no evidence of an interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for the other outcomes. However, methodological quality of the included studies was variable, with 10 out of the 13 included studies (4 out of 6 studies contributing IPD) judged at high risk of bias for at least one methodological aspect, leading to variable individual study results, and therefore, heterogeneity in the analyses of this review. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of poor methodological aspects, where possible.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we found evidence suggestive of an advantage for carbamazepine in terms of drug effectiveness compared with phenobarbitone (retention of the drug in terms of seizure control and adverse events) and evidence suggestive of an association between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (phenobarbitone favoured for partial seizures and carbamazepine favoured for generalised seizures). However, this evidence was judged to be of low quality due to poor methodological quality and the potential impact on individual study results (and therefore variability (heterogeneity) present in the analysis within this review), we encourage caution when interpreting the results of this review and do not advocate that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenobarbitone. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations for allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Topiramate versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy, the majority of which may be able to achieve remission with a single antiepileptic drug (AED).The correct choice of first-line antiepileptic therapy for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AED for an individual is based on the highest-quality evidence available regarding the potential benefits and harms of various treatments. It is also important to compare the efficacy and tolerability of AEDs appropriate to given seizure types.Topiramate and carbamazepine are commonly used AEDs. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of results of outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability, and may help inform a choice between the two drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of topiramate monotherapy versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy in people with partial-onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (14 April 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (14 April 2016) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 14 April 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial-onset seizures or generalised-onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types with a comparison of monotherapy with either topiramate or carbamazepine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was 'time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'time to first seizure post randomisation', 'time to 6-month remission, 'time to 12-month remission' and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and used the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HRs and 95% CIs.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were available for 1151 of 1239 eligible individuals from two of three eligible studies (93% of the potential data). A small proportion of individuals recruited into these trials had 'unclassified seizures;' for analysis purposes, these individuals are grouped with those with generalised onset seizures. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for topiramate.The main overall results, given as pooled HR adjusted for seizure type (95% CI) were: for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment 1.16 (0.98 to 1.38); time to first seizure 1.11 (0.96 to 1.29); and time to 6-month remission 0.88 (0.76 to 1.01). There were no statistically significant differences between the drugs. A statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to 12-month remission: 0.84 (0.71 to 1.00).The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with partial-onset seizures; 85% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. For individuals with partial-onset seizures, a statistically significant advantage for carbamazepine was shown for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (HR 1.20, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.45) and time to 12-month remission (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.00). No statistically significant differences were apparent between the drugs for other outcomes and for the limited number of individuals with generalised-onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types or unclassified seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events with both drugs were drowsiness or fatigue, 'pins and needles' (tingling sensation), headache, gastrointestinal disturbance and anxiety or depression The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.We judged the methodological quality of the included trials generally to be good; however, there was some evidence that the open-label design of the larger of the two trials may have influenced the withdrawal rate from the trial. Hence, we judged the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment withdrawal to be moderate for individuals with partial-onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised-onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the evidence from this review to be high for individuals with partial-onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised-onset or unclassified seizures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For individuals with partial-onset seizures, there is evidence that carbamazepine is less likely to be withdrawn and that 12-month remission will be achieved earlier than with topiramate. No differences were found between the drugs in terms of the outcomes measured in the review for individuals with generalised tonic-clonic seizures with or without other seizure types or unclassified epilepsy; however, we encourage caution in the interpretation of these results due to the small numbers of participants with these seizure types.We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible and take into consideration masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Lamotrigine versus carbamazepine monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2006 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and to go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.The correct choice of first-line antiepileptic therapy for individuals with newly diagnosed seizures is of great importance. It is important that the choice of AEDs for an individual is made using the highest quality evidence regarding the potential benefits and harms of the various treatments. It is also important that the effectiveness and tolerability of AEDs appropriate to given seizure types are compared to one another.Carbamazepine or lamotrigine are first-line recommended treatments for new onset partial seizures and as a first- or second-line treatment for generalised tonic-clonic seizures. Performing a synthesis of the evidence from existing trials will increase the precision of the results for outcomes relating to efficacy and tolerability and may assist in informing a choice between the two drugs.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to withdrawal, remission and first seizure with lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

The first searches for this review were run in 1997. For the most recent update we searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register (17 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO, 17 October 2016) and MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 17 October 2016). We imposed no language restrictions. We also contacted pharmaceutical companies and trial investigators.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures comparing monotherapy with either carbamazepine or lamotrigine.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to withdrawal of allocated treatment and our secondary outcomes were time to first seizure post-randomisation, time to six-month, 12-month and 24-month remission, and incidence of adverse events. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain trial-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), using the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 13 studies in this review. Individual participant data were available for 2572 participants out of 3394 eligible individuals from nine out of 13 trials: 78% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for carbamazepine and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes a HR < 1 indicated an advantage for lamotrigine.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were: time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.82), time to first seizure (HR 1.22, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.37) and time to six-month remission (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.74 to 0.94), showing a significant advantage for lamotrigine compared to carbamazepine for withdrawal but a significant advantage for carbamazepine compared to lamotrigine for first seizure and six-month remission. We found no difference between the drugs for time to 12-month remission (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.07) or time to 24-month remission (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.25), however only two trials followed up participants for more than one year so the evidence is limited.The results of this review are applicable mainly to individuals with partial onset seizures; 88% of included individuals experienced seizures of this type at baseline. Up to 50% of the limited number of individuals classified as experiencing generalised onset seizures at baseline may have had their seizure type misclassified, therefore we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review for individuals with generalised onset seizures.The most commonly reported adverse events for both of the drugs across all of the included trials were dizziness, fatigue, gastrointestinal disturbances, headache and skin problems. The rate of adverse events was similar across the two drugs.The methodological quality of the included trials was generally good, however there is some evidence that the design choice of masked or open-label treatment may have influenced the withdrawal rates of the trials. Hence, we judged the quality of the evidence for the primary outcome of treatment withdrawal to be moderate for individuals with partial onset seizures and low for individuals with generalised onset seizures. For efficacy outcomes (first seizure, remission), we judged the quality of evidence to be high for individuals with partial onset seizures and moderate for individuals with generalised onset seizures.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Lamotrigine was significantly less likely to be withdrawn than carbamazepine but the results for time to first seizure suggested that carbamazepine may be superior in terms of seizure control. A choice between these first-line treatments must be made with careful consideration. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with consideration of masking, choice of population, classification of seizure type, duration of follow-up, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Phenytoin versus valproate monotherapy for partial onset seizures and generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, phenytoin and valproate are commonly used antiepileptic drugs. It is generally believed that phenytoin is more effective for partial onset seizures, and that valproate is more effective for generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types). This review is one in a series of Cochrane reviews investigating pair-wise monotherapy comparisons. This is the latest updated version of the review first published in 2001 and updated in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to withdrawal, remission and first seizure of phenytoin compared to valproate when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures or generalised tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (19 May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; the Cochrane Library; 2015, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1946 to 19 May 2015), SCOPUS (19 February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (19 May 2015), and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (19 May 2015). We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of valproate monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Outcomes were time to: (a) withdrawal of allocated treatment (retention time); (b) achieve 12-month remission (seizure-free period); (c) achieve six-month remission (seizure-free period); and (d) first seizure (post-randomisation). We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were available for 669 individuals out of 1119 eligible individuals from five out of 11 trials, 60% of the potential data. Results apply to partial onset seizures (simple, complex and secondary generalised tonic-clonic seizures), and generalised tonic-clonic seizures, but not other generalised seizure types (absence or myoclonus seizure types). For remission outcomes: HR > 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes: HR > 1 indicates an advantage for valproate.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were time to: (a) withdrawal of allocated treatment 1.09 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.55); (b) achieve 12-month remission 0.98 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.23); (c) achieve six-month remission 0.95 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.15); and (d) first seizure 0.93 (95% CI 0.75 to 1.14). The results suggest no overall difference between the drugs for these outcomes. We did not find any statistical interaction between treatment and seizure type (partial versus generalised).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence that a significant difference exists between phenytoin and valproate for the outcomes examined in this review. However misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review. Results do not apply to absence or myoclonus seizure types. No outright evidence was found to support or refute current treatment policies.

Carbamazepine versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 2, 2002 and its subsequent update in 2010.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which recurrent, unprovoked seizures are caused by abnormal electrical discharges from the brain. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenytoin are commonly used broad spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first line treatment for partial onset seizures in the USA and Europe. Phenytoin is no longer considered a first line treatment due to concerns over adverse events associated with its use, however the drug is still commonly used in low- to middle-income countries due to it's low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between carbamazepine and phenytoin in individual trials, however the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide. Therefore, differences in efficacy may be shown by synthesising the data of the individual trials.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to withdrawal, six- and 12-month remission, and first seizure of carbamazepine compared to phenytoin when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple partial, complex partial, or secondarily generalised tonic-clonic seizures) or generalised tonic-clonic seizures, with or without other generalised seizure types.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (16 September 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (1946 to 16 September 2014), SCOPUS (1823 to 16 September 2014), ClinicalTrials.gov (16 September 2014), and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (18 September 2014). We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of carbamazepine monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, and our secondary outcomes were time to 12-month remission, time to six-month remission and time to first seizure post-randomisation. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the generic inverse variance method to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

IPD were available for 595 participants out of 1192 eligible individuals, from four out of 12 trials (i.e. 50% of the potential data). For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin; and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicates an advantage for carbamazepine. Methodological quality of the four studies providing IPD was generally good and we rated it at low risk of bias overall in the analyses.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type) were time to withdrawal of allocated treatment: 1.04 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.39); time to 12-month remission: 1.01 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.31); time to six-month remission: 1.11 (95% CI 0.81 to 1.37); and time to first seizure: 0.85 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.04). The results suggest no overall statistically significant difference between the drugs for these outcomes. There is some evidence of an advantage for phenytoin for individuals with generalised onset seizures for our primary outcome (time to withdrawal of allocated treatment): pooled HR 0.42 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.96); and a statistical interaction between treatment effect and epilepsy type (partial versus generalised) for this outcome (P = 0.02), however misclassification of seizure type for up to 48 individuals (32% of those with generalised epilepsy) may have confounded the results of this review. Despite concerns over side effects leading to the withdrawal of phenytoin as first line treatment in the USA and Europe, we found no evidence that phenytoin is more likely to be associated with serious side effects than carbamazepine; 26 individuals withdrew from 290 randomised (9%) to carbamazepine due to adverse effects compared to 12 out of 299 (4%) randomised to phenytoin from four studies conducted in the USA and Europe (risk ratio (RR) 1.42, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.80, P = 0.014). We rated the quality of the evidence as low - moderate according to GRADE criteria, due to imprecision and potential misclassification of seizure type.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence that a statistically significant difference exists between carbamazepine and phenytoin for the efficacy outcomes examined in this review, however, CIs are wide and the possibility of important differences existing has not been excluded. There is no evidence in this review that phenytoin is more strongly associated with serious adverse events than carbamazepine. There is some evidence that participants with generalised seizures may be less likely to withdraw early from phenytoin than carbamazepine, but misclassification of seizure type may have impacted upon the results of this review. We recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review, and do not recommend that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between carbamazepine and phenytoin. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations on allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Carbamazepine versus phenobarbitone monotherapy for epilepsy: an individual participant data review

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in Issue 1, 2003, of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Epilepsy is a common neurological condition in which abnormal electrical discharges from the brain cause recurrent unprovoked seizures. It is believed that with effective drug treatment, up to 70% of individuals with active epilepsy have the potential to become seizure-free and go into long-term remission shortly after starting drug therapy with a single antiepileptic drug (AED) in monotherapy.Worldwide, carbamazepine (CBZ) and phenobarbitone (PB) are commonly used broad-spectrum antiepileptic drugs, suitable for most epileptic seizure types. Carbamazepine is a current first-line treatment for partial onset seizures in the USA and Europe. Phenobarbitone is no longer considered a first-line treatment because of concerns over associated adverse events, particularly documented behavioural adverse events in children treated with the drug. However, PB is still commonly used in low- and middle-income countries because of its low cost. No consistent differences in efficacy have been found between CBZ and PB in individual trials; however, the confidence intervals generated by these studies are wide, and therefore, synthesising the data of the individual trials may show differences in efficacy.

OBJECTIVES

To review the time to withdrawal, remission, and first seizure of CBZ compared with PB when used as monotherapy in people with partial onset seizures (simple or complex partial and secondarily generalised) or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures (with or without other generalised seizure types).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to September 2014: the Cochrane Epilepsy Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 8), MEDLINE (from 1946), Scopus (from 1823), the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (www.clinicaltrials.gov), and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry platform (WHO ICTRP). We handsearched relevant journals and contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators, and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of CBZ monotherapy versus PB monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual participant data (IPD) review. Our primary outcome was 'Time to withdrawal of allocated treatment', and our secondary outcomes were 'Time to 12-month remission', 'Time to 6-month remission', and 'Time to first seizure postrandomisation'. We used Cox proportional hazards regression models to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with the generic inverse variance method used to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

Individual participant data were available for 836 participants out of 1455 eligible individuals from 6 out of 13 trials, 57% of the potential data. For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for PB, and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes, HR > 1 indicated an advantage for CBZ.The main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type, 95% CI) were HR 1.50 for time to withdrawal of allocated treatment (95% CI 1.15 to 1.95, P = 0.003); HR 0.93 for time to 12-month remission (95% CI 0.72 to 1.20, P = 0.57); HR 0.99 for time to 6-month remission (95% CI 0.80 to 1.23, P = 0.95); and HR 0.87 for time to first seizure (95% CI 0.72 to 1.06, P = 0.18). Results suggest an advantage for CBZ over PB in terms of time to treatment withdrawal and no statistically significant evidence between the drugs for the other outcomes. We found evidence of a statistically significant interaction between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (Chi² test for subgroup differences P = 0.03), where PB was favoured for partial onset seizures (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.96, P = 0.02) and CBZ was favoured for generalised onset seizures (HR 1.23, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.77, P = 0.27). However, methodological quality of the included studies was variable, with 10 out of the 13 included studies (4 out of 6 studies contributing IPD) judged as high risk of bias for at least 1 methodological aspect, leading to variable individual study results and therefore heterogeneity in the analyses of this review. We conducted sensitivity analyses to examine the impact of poor methodological aspects where possible.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, we found evidence suggestive of an advantage for CBZ in terms of drug effectiveness compared with PB (retention of the drug in terms of seizure control and adverse events) and evidence of an association between treatment effect and seizure type for time to first seizure recurrence (PB favoured for partial seizures and CBZ favoured for generalised seizures). Given the varying quality of studies included in this review and the impact of poor methodological quality on individual study results (and therefore variability (heterogeneity) present in the analysis within this review), we recommend caution when interpreting the results of this review and do not recommend that the results of this review alone should be used in choosing between CBZ and PB. We recommend that future trials should be designed to the highest quality possible with considerations for allocation concealment and masking, choice of population, choice of outcomes and analysis, and presentation of results.

Phenytoin versus valproate monotherapy for partial onset seizures and generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures

BACKGROUND

This is an updated version of the previously published Cochrane review (Issue 4, 2009)Worldwide, phenytoin and valproate are commonly used antiepileptic drugs. It is generally believed that phenytoin is more effective for partial onset seizures, and that valproate is more effective for generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types.

OBJECTIVES

To review the best evidence comparing phenytoin and valproate when used as monotherapy in individuals with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalised seizure types.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Epilepsy Group's Specialised Register (19 February 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, Issue 1, The Cochrane Library, January 2013), MEDLINE (1946 to 18 February 2013), SCOPUS (19 February 2013), ClinicalTrials.gov (19 February 2013), and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ICTRP (19 February 2013). We handsearched relevant journals, contacted pharmaceutical companies, original trial investigators and experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalised onset tonic-clonic seizures with a comparison of valproate monotherapy versus phenytoin monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual patient data review. Outcomes were time to (a) treatment withdrawal (b) 12-month remission (c) six-month remission and (d) first seizure post randomisation. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to obtain study-specific estimates of hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) with the generic inverse variance method used to obtain the overall pooled HR and 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

Individual patient data were available for 669 individuals out of 1119 eligible individuals from five out of 11 trials, 60% of the potential data. Results apply to generalised tonic-clonic seizures, but not absence or myoclonus seizure types. For remission outcomes, HR > 1 indicates an advantage for phenytoin and for first seizure and withdrawal outcomes HR > 1 indicates an advantage for valproateThe main overall results (pooled HR adjusted for seizure type, 95% CI) were time to (a) withdrawal of allocated treatment 1.09 (0.76 to 1.55); (b) 12-month remission 0.98 (0.78 to 1.23); (c) six-month remission 0.95 (0.78 to 1.15) and (d) first seizure 0.93 (0.75 to 1.14). The results suggest no overall difference between the drugs for these outcomes. No statistical interaction between treatment and seizure type (partial versus generalised) was found, but misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence that a significant difference exists between phenytoin and valproate for the outcomes examined in this review. However misclassification of seizure type may have confounded the results of this review. Results do not apply to absence or myoclonus seizure types. No outright evidence was found to support or refute current treatment policies.

Clinical and electroencephalographic characteristics of a cohort of patients with epilepsy and absence seizures

BACKGROUND

Epileptic syndromes with absence seizures (AS) possess unique clinical and electroencephalographic (EEG) characteristics. In typical or atypical AS, ictal phenomenology may include various characteristics. Vídeo-EEG monitoring enables findings to be correlated with ictal phenomenology.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the different AS in a cohort of patients with drug-resistant epilepsy (DRE) based on the International League against Epilepsy (ILAE)'s 2006 classification, to correlate with ictal phenomenology recorded and to apply the Panayiotopoulos criteria.

METHOD

This study included patients with criteria of AS followed up at the Epilepsy Clinic. A dual, cross-sectional cohort study was carried out between 2005 and 2008. Patients receiving care in the Epilepsy Program of the HUCFF-UFRJ, who had been investigated by video-EEG and who presented clinical and EEG criteria for absence seizures, typical or atypical, according to the criteria defined by the ILAE, were included in the study, independent of age onset, the review of clinical history, age onset, family history, epilepsy onset and evolution, seizures phenomenology, antiepileptic drugs response and neuroimaging studies were used to classify the patients among the different epileptic syndrome associated to absence seizures.

RESULTS

Typical absences were more frequent (71.4%) than atypical absences. Cases of juvenile absence epilepsy were the most frequent (19%) in this series, followed by childhood absence epilepsy (14.4%) and juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (4.8%). In 14 patients (66.67%), diagnosis was modified from focal epilepsy to primary generalized epilepsy. Clinical and EEG diagnosis of absence epilepsy resulted in a dramatic improvement in the control of seizures following modification of diagnosis and indication of an appropriate antiepileptic drug.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that typical AS are more frequent than atypical. AS was successfully defined in 10 patients following application of Panayiotopoulos' criteria. The consequent change in diagnosis and therapy resulted in resolution of refractoriness in 9 patients. We concluded that in DRE, AS associated to unusual ictal phenomenology improve dramatically when diagnosed by video-EEG, permitting seizures to be controlled. Clinical and EEG evaluation confirm that myoclonus, automatisms and autonomic disorders are involved and that the consciousness may be affected to different degrees.

Selection of antiepileptic drugs in adults

Epilepsy affects approximately 50 million people worldwide, with an annual incidence of 50 to 70 cases per 100,000 population. The condition can strike at any time of life, with an immediate impact on everyday activities and routine. Key to optimal management is swift referral to an epilepsy specialist, appropriate investigation, and timely institution of antiepileptic drug therapy. In the past 20 years, the explosion of 13 new agents into the marketplace has greatly increased the potential for therapeutic intervention. This article explores the rationale for treatment selection in adults with epilepsy.

Idiopathic generalized epilepsies: clinical and electroencephalogram diagnosis and treatment

This review concentrates on the principles of the clinical and electroencephalogram diagnosis of idiopathic generalized epilepsies and their treatment. The electroclinical variability of the main seizure types is detailed and particular emphasis is placed on the differential diagnosis from other seizures and nonepileptic conditions that is essential for the optimal management of these patients. The authors review the various idiopathic generalized epilepsy subsyndromes and conditions that are included in both the 1989 International League Against Epilepsy classification system and the recently proposed International League Against Epilepsy scheme, but also syndromes and forms that have not been formally recognized. Finally, the authors describe the principles of antiepileptic drug treatment with the old and newer drugs, and their specific indications and contraindications in the various syndromes and seizure types.

Absence and myoclonic status epilepticus precipitated by antiepileptic drugs in idiopathic generalized epilepsy

Aggravation of idiopathic generalized epilepsy (IGE) syndromes by inappropriate antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is increasingly recognized as a serious and common problem. Precipitation of status epilepticus (SE) by inappropriate medication has rarely been reported. We retrospectively studied all adult patients with IGE taking at least one potentially aggravating AED, who developed video-EEG documented SE over 8 years, and whose long-term outcome was favourable after adjustment of medication. We identified 14 patients (seven male patients) aged 15-46 years with a mean duration of epilepsy of 16.4 years. Video-EEG demonstrated typical absence SE (ASE) in five, atypical ASE in five, atypical myoclonic SE (MSE) in three and typical MSE in one. Epilepsy had been misclassified as cryptogenic partial in eight cases and cryptogenic generalized in four. The correct diagnosis proved to be juvenile absence epilepsy (JAE) in six patients, juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME) in four, epilepsy with grand mal on awakening (EGMA) in two and childhood absence epilepsy (CAE) in two. All patients had been treated with carbamazepine (CBZ) and had experienced seizure aggravation or new seizure types before referral. Seven patients had polytherapy with phenytoin (PHT), vigabatrin (VGB) or gabapentin (GBP). Potential precipitating factors included dose increase of CBZ or of CBZ and PHT; initiation of CBZ, VGB or GBP; and decrease of phenobarbital. Withdrawal of the aggravating agents and adjustment of medication resulted in full seizure control. This series shows that severe pharmacodynamic aggravation of seizures in IGE may result in ASE or MSE, often with atypical features.

Management of Focal-Onset Seizures

Focal-onset seizures are manifestations of abnormal epileptic firing of brain cells in a localised area or areas of the brain. The diagnosis of focal-onset seizures initially entails an EEG, a detailed history from the patient and eyewitnesses, as well as computer tomographic or, preferably, magnetic resonance imaging scans. Video EEG to record ictal events may be necessary to establish the correct diagnosis. Focal seizures are classified according to the International Classification of Epileptic Seizures and International Classification of Epilepsies and Epilepsy Syndromes. It is important to try to decide how the seizure event fits into this system in order to successfully evaluate and optimise treatment, as well as to give detailed information to the patient about their seizures and prognosis. Once the decision to treat the seizures has been made, the physician must choose which medication is the most appropriate to begin with. Carbamazepine, phenytoin or valproic acid (sodium valproate) are often rated as first-line drugs, but factors such as adverse-effect profiles, age, possibility of pregnancy, and concomitant diseases and medication also need to be considered. Most of the newer antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) appear to have good efficacy and better tolerability than the older agents, but evidence to support their superiority is scarce and has led to conflicting advice in several guidelines. Among the newer AEDs, lamotrigine, gabapentin, topiramate and oxcarbazepine have obtained monotherapy indication in many countries. The higher costs of the newer AEDs may inhibit their wider use, especially in poorer countries.

Seizure Aggravation in Idiopathic Generalized Epilepsies

Seizures in the idiopathic generalized epilepsies (IGEs) usually remit completely with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). Occasionally, however, they may be aggravated by AEDs. Before attributing exacerbation of seizures to an AED, alternative explanations need to be excluded. These include natural fluctuation of seizures, irregular compliance, maladjustment to the disease, comorbid illness, and development of tolerance. Aggravation may be due to a paradoxical reaction or drug-induced encephalopathy, sedative effects, or inappropriate use of a drug; and this need to be established, as it will guide management. An important caveat is that most data on aggravation of generalized seizures are based on anecdotal case reports or case series. Whether considering efficacy or aggravation, the interpretation of data from uncontrolled studies and case reports must be treated with caution. In practice, despite the fact that clear evidence is lacking, the possibility of seizure aggravation must be considered when treating people with IGEs. Predictive factors for seizure aggravation in a particular patient with a specific drug are yet to be fully defined. It is paramount to classify seizure type correctly in all patients. If this is not possible, a broad-spectrum AED should be used. Drugs that modulate Na+-channels and GABAergic drugs seem to be more prone to aggravating seizures, and therefore are best avoided in the initial management of IGE. Further studies are required to elucidate this phenomenon in full. It is interesting to speculate that paradoxical responses to AEDs may have pharmacogenetic value, serving as tools for a more precise and useful characterization of the epilepsies.

Aggravation of epilepsy by antiepileptic drugs

Antiepileptic drugs may paradoxically worsen seizure frequency or induce new seizure types in some patients with epilepsy. The mechanisms of seizure aggravation by antiepileptic drugs are mostly unknown and may be related to specific pharmacodynamic properties of these drugs. This article provides a review of the various clinical circumstances of seizure exacerbation and aggravation of epilepsy by antiepileptic drugs as well as a discussion of possible mechanisms underlying the occasional paradoxical effect of these drugs. Antiepileptic drug-induced seizure aggravation can occur virtually with all antiepileptic medications. Drugs that aggravate seizures are more likely to have only one or two mechanisms of action, either enhanced gamma-aminobutyric acid-mediated transmission or blockade of voltage-gated sodium channels. Antiepileptic drug-induced seizure exacerbation should be considered and the accuracy of diagnosis of the seizure type should be questioned whenever there is seizure worsening or the appearance of new seizure types after the introduction of any antiepileptic medication.

Current drug treatment of epilepsy in adults

The choice of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) is rapidly increasing. This review looks at the evidence that guides the decision of which AED to start as monotherapy and aims to aid the choice of treatment if monotherapy fails. Unfortunately, the evidence supporting the prescribing of new drugs is sparse, because most randomised controlled trials answer questions focused on regulatory requirements rather than on clinical use. Ultimately, the choice of one AED will be determined by an individual risk-benefit assessment in which the most effective drug for an individual patient is chosen, and one that would have the lowest risk of significant harm. It is the risk of chronic toxic effects and issues of teratogenicity for women that may affect the choice of drug therapy to the greatest degree. In the future there is a need to improve the quality of clinical data on efficacy and harmful effects of AEDs.

The influence of gender on the aggravation of absence seizures by carbamazepine in the low-dose pentylenetetrazol rat model

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether carbamazepine (CBZ) aggravates absence seizures in the low-dose pentylenetetrazol (PTZ) rat model in both male and female animals, and investigate for gender differences.

METHODS

Inbred Sprague-Dawley rats were implanted with EEG electrodes. Seven days later PTZ (20 mg/kg, i.p.) was administered following pre-treatment with vehicle or CBZ (20 mg/kg, i.p.) and the occurrence of spike-and-wave discharges (SWDs) on the EEG quantified.

RESULTS

The cumulative SWD for 90-minute post-PTZ was higher in the CBZ versus vehicle pre-treatment arm for both female (mean 110 seconds vs. 62 seconds; P = 0.03) and male (mean 89 seconds vs. 60 seconds; P = 0.03) rats. The increase in SWD duration in the CBZ arm was greater in female rats for the first five 15-minute intervals, but none attained statistical significance (P > 0.05). CBZ pre-treatment resulted in reductions in both SWD frequency (Hz) (male, P = 0.003; female, P < 0.0001) and latency to onset of SWD (male, P = 0.002). The frequency of SWD in CBZ pre-treated rats was lower in females (5.8 Hz vs. 6.1 Hz, P = 0.002) as was the decrease in the SWD burst duration following CBZ versus vehicle pre-treatment (-0.05 seconds vs. -0.25 seconds, P = 0.046).

CONCLUSIONS

CBZ consistently aggravates absence seizures in the low-dose PTZ model in both female and male rats. However, while some gender differences were found, the results failed to support the hypothesis that females are significantly more susceptible to aggravation of the number or duration of absence seizures by CBZ.

Electrophysiological characterization of spontaneous and carbamazepine-induced epileptic negative myoclonus in benign childhood epilepsy with centro-temporal spikes

OBJECTIVE

Epileptic negative myoclonus (ENM), a transient muscular atonic phenomenon time-locked to epileptiform EEG abnormalities, is often observed in children with benign childhood epilepsy with centro-temporal spikes (BECTS). In some, for unknown reasons, ENM can be worsened by carbamazepine (CBZ). We describe two children aged 11 and 15 years, in whom CBZ precipitated seizure worsening and ENM. We investigated the morphological and topographic features of the EEG abnormalities while on CBZ and after CBZ withdrawal and compared them with those from 9 children with classical BECTS. The aim of the study was to identify possible electrophysiological specificities in patients who eventually develop ENM during CBZ treatment.

METHODS

The characterization of EEG abnormalities, related (R) and unrelated to ENM (U), in patients with ENM and rolandic discharges (RD) and in matched controls with BECTS was performed based on polygraphic digital EEG recordings. Off-line time-domain analysis included correlation coefficient between EEG and EMG channels, quantitative analysis on ENM, and topographic analysis on spike-and-wave complexes. Z-score test and paired t test were used when appropriate for statistical analysis on R, U and RD.

RESULTS

Recordings in both children with BECTS and ENM while on CBZ showed frequent R discharges (mean interval between R=19.89+/-9.4 s in patient 1; 2.16+/-1.2 s in patient 2). Withdrawal of CBZ produced abatement of R (no R recorded in patient 1; 5.69+/-7.1 s in patient 2) and reduction of the slow wave component of R (P<0.01). Morphology and topography of R and RD differed in field distribution, amplitude (P<0.01) and duration (P<0.01) of the slow wave component. RD and U did not show a significantly different morphology and field distribution.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that an increased cortical inhibition could be the electrophysiological correlate of CBZ-induced ENM. If confirmed on a larger series, the presence of spike-wave (rather than sharp waves) discharges in children with BECTS might be used as an electrophysiological predictor of an abnormal response to CBZ.

Anti-epileptic drugs-induced de novo absence seizures

The authors present three patients with de novo absence epilepsy after administration of carbamazepine and vigabatrin. Despite the underlying diseases, the prognosis for drug-induced de novo absence seizure is good because it subsides rapidly after discontinuing the use of the offending drugs. The gamma-aminobutyric acid-transmitted thalamocortical circuitry accounts for a major part of the underlying neurophysiology of the absence epilepsy. Because drug-induced de novo absence seizure is rare, pro-absence drugs can only be considered a promoting factor. The underlying epileptogenecity of the patients or the synergistic effects of the accompanying drugs is required to trigger the de novo absence seizure. The possibility of drug-induced aggravation should be considered whenever an unexpected increase in seizure frequency and/or new seizure types appear following a change in drug treatment. By understanding the underlying mechanism of absence epilepsy, we can avoid the inappropriate use of anticonvulsants in children with epilepsy and prevent drug-induced absence seizures.

Reducing overtreatment

Although treatment of epilepsy easily evolves into a situation of overtreatment, reversing the process can be difficult and time consuming. Benefits of reducing overtreatment may include a decrease in side effects, better seizure control, a simplification in the medication regimen, improved compliance, and reduced costs. The risks include seizure exacerbation due to withdrawal or due to loss of protection. Reversal of pharmacokinetic interactions may also lead to seizure aggravation or to drug toxicity. When reducing overtreatment, there are three main challenges: to select the drugs that should be eliminated, to choose an appropriate rate of reduction, and to anticipate reversible pharmacokinetic interactions that can have clinically significant consequences. Overall, there is a lack of published data to properly support recommendations for implementing reduction of overtreatment. This is particularly the case in the pediatric population and for the newer antiepileptic drugs.

Carbamazepine-induced seizures: a case report and review of the literature

Carbamazepine has been reported to exacerbate seizures in children with primary generalized epilepsy and epilepsy with mixed seizure types. Seizure exacerbation has been rarely observed in adults, mainly in the mentally retarded or in those with primary generalized epilepsy. We present an adult patient who had frequent absence seizures and simple partial seizures for 20 years. She was treated with carbamazepine for over 16 years. The patient's EEG showed generalized spike and wave complexes. Her seizures remitted and the EEG normalized after the discontinuation of carbamazepine therapy.

Epilepsias generalizadas idiopáticas diagnosticadas incorretamente como epilepsias parciais

A epilepsia generalizada idiopática (EGI) frequentemente não é diagnosticada corretamente em adultos, com sérias consequências para os pacientes. O objetivo deste estudo foi avaliar os fatores mais frequentemente associados a dificuldades no diagnóstico diferencial entre epilepsias parciais e generalizadas em adultos. Avaliamos 41 pacientes com diagnostico de crises parciais complexas com elementos de anamnese e EEG indicando um possível diagnóstico diferencial. Foi possível a mudança do diagnóstico de epilepsia parcial para EGI em 25 pacientes: 22 (88%) com EMJ; um com ausência juvenil, um com síndrome de ausências com mioclonias periorais e um com ausência com mioclonias palpebrais. Mioclonias, uma das características da EMJ e outras formas de EGI, geralmente não eram espontaneamente relatadas pelos pacientes. Abalos mioclônicos unilaterais eram confundidos com crises parciais motoras. Ausências breves e pouco frequentes e anormalidades focais no EEG contribuíram para o não reconhecimento de EGI. Todos os 25 pacientes apresentavam crises sem controle adequado antes da revisão diagnóstica. Após o diagnóstico correto e mudança para monoterapia com acido valpróico ou valproato de sódio, 19 (76%) ficaram livre de crises e seis (24%) dos 25 pacientes apresentaram melhora significativa. A associação de lamotrigina em três destes pacientes propiciou redução significativa da frequência de crises. Em conclusão, anamnese detalhada e questionamento direcionado para determinar a presença de mioclonias e crises tipo ausência e a sua interpretação no contexto clínico são fundamentais para o diagnóstico correto das EGI em adultos.

Carbamazepine versus valproate monotherapy for epilepsy: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To provide an overview of the evidence comparing carbamazepine (CBZ) and valproate (VPA) monotherapy for epilepsy, investigating whether existing data support the current practice of preferring CBZ for partial-onset and VPA for generalized-onset seizures.

METHODS

We performed meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials by using individual patient data. Our strategy included searches of (a) Medline, 1966-2000; (b) The Cochrane Library 2000, issue 4; and (c) the pharmaceutical industry. Outcome measures were time to discontinuation of allocated treatment, time to 12-month remission, and time to first seizure after randomization. Results are expressed as hazard ratios (HRs; 95% CI), where HR>1 indicates that an event is more likely with VPA. A test for an interaction between treatment and seizure type (partial vs. generalized onset) also was undertaken.

RESULTS

Data were available for 1,265 patients from five trials. Overall results (HR, 95% CI) were Time to treatment discontinuation, 0.97 (0.79-1.18); 12-Month remission, 0.87 (0.74-1.02); and First seizure, 1.09 (0.96-1.25), suggesting no overall difference for these outcomes. The test for an interaction between Treatment and Seizure type was significant for time to first seizure, but for no other outcome. The age distribution of adults classified as having generalized seizures indicated that significant numbers of patients may have had their seizures misclassified.

CONCLUSIONS

We found some evidence to support the preference of CBZ for partial-onset seizures, but no evidence to support the preference of VPA for generalized-onset seizures. Confidence intervals are too wide to infer equivalence. Misclassification of patients may have confounded our results and has important implications for future trials.

Clinical predictors of response to lamotrigine and gabapentin monotherapy in refractory affective disorders

BACKGROUND

The objective of the current study was to examine possible clinical predictors of positive response to lamotrigine or gabapentin monotherapy in treatment-refractory affectively ill patients.

METHODS

Forty-five patients with treatment refractory bipolar (n = 35) or unipolar (n = 10) affective disorder participated in a clinical study evaluating six weeks of treatment with lamotrigine, gabapentin, or placebo monotherapy given in a double-blind, randomized fashion with two subsequent cross-overs to the other agents. Patients received daily mood ratings and weekly cross-sectional scales. Much or very much improved on the Clinical Global Impression scale modified for bipolar illness was considered a positive response. Degree of response was correlated with a number of baseline demographic and course of illness variables in a univariate analysis and then by linear regression.

RESULTS

Response rates to lamotrigine (51%) exceeded those to gabapentin (28%) and placebo (21%). A positive response to lamotrigine monotherapy was associated with a bipolar diagnosis; fewer hospitalizations; fewer prior medication trials; and male gender (of which the latter two variables survived logistic regression). For gabapentin, degree of response correlated with shorter duration of illness; younger age; and lower baseline weight (with the latter two surviving linear regression).

CONCLUSIONS

In this highly treatment-refractory population, lamotrigine appeared most effective for male patients with fewer prior medication trials. Gabapentin monotherapy, although not better than placebo, appeared most effective in those with younger age and lower baseline weight. These preliminary data in a treatment refractory subgroup may help in the further definition of the range of clinical utility of these widely used anticonvulsants.

Spike-and-wave complexes and seizure exacerbation caused by carbamazepine

The purpose of this research is to analyse patients in whom carbamazepine (CBZ) therapy adversely affected electroencephalogram (EEG) recordings leading to seizure exacerbation and to identify risk factors for these events. From a total number of 2191 patients (p.) included in the Municipal Epilepsy Center (MEC) database, 77 patients with spike-and-wave (SW) discharges while on CBZ treatment have been selected. Patient population was divided in two groups: (i) patients who were already receiving CBZ at the time of their first visit to the MEC; and (ii) patients to whom CBZ was prescribed during follow-up at the MEC. CBZ was discontinued in all patients with confirmed evidence of an increase in seizure frequency, or with no improvement of epilepsy. During follow-up, EEG findings as well as all clinical changes were duly recorded. Group 1: Carbamazepine was discontinued in 17 patients (p.) as a result of paradoxical reactions. This condition occurs when an antiepileptic drug (AED) appears to exacerbate a type of seizure against which it is usually effective, or when it leads to the onset of new types of seizures. Three p. were withdrawn because of inappropriate drug selection. Group 2: CBZ was discontinued in six patients (p.) as a result of paradoxical reactions. The paradoxical reaction was more frequent in patients with frontal epilepsy and generalized SW discharges on the EEG (P=0.09) and patients with benign rolandic epilepsy (BRE) with diffuse interictal sharp and slow-wave discharges. In both groups, clinical and electrical changes returned to their initial status upon CBZ withdrawal. On the basis of this study, it may be concluded that EEGs might eventually help to screen high-risk patients. If EEG recordings become substantially worse, with more frequent and longer generalized SW bursts after initiation of CBZ therapy, patients should be carefully monitored in order to detect any sign of clinical impairment.

Carbamazepine versus phenytoin monotherapy for epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Worldwide, carbamazepine and phenytoin are commonly used antiepileptic drugs. This review summarizes evidence from randomized controlled trials in which these two drugs have been compared.

OBJECTIVES

To review the best evidence comparing carbamazepine and phenytoin when used as monotherapy in subjects with partial onset seizures, or generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalized seizure types.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched: (a) the trial register of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group; (b) The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library Issue 4, 2001); (c) MEDLINE 1966-2001. In addition we hand searched relevant journals and contacted the pharmaceutical industry and researchers in the field to seek any ongoing or unpublished studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures. Trials must have included a comparison of carbamazepine monotherapy with phenytoin monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual patient data review. Outcomes were time to (a) withdrawal of allocated treatment, (b) 12 month remission, (c) six month remission, and (d) first seizure post randomization. Data were analysed using a stratified logrank analysis with results expressed as hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), where a HR>1 indicates an event is more likely on phenytoin.

MAIN RESULTS

Individual patient data are available for 551 participants from three trials, representing 63% of the participants recruited into the nine trials that met our inclusion criteria. By convention, for the outcomes time to six and 12 month remission HR>1 indicates a clinical advantage for phenytoin, whilst for time to withdrawal and first seizure HR>1 indicates a clinical advantage for carbamazepine. Results (HR (95% CI)) were: (i) time to withdrawal of allocated treatment 0.97(0.74 to 1.28), (ii) time to 12 month remission 1.00(0.78 to 1.29), (iii) time to six month remission 1.10(0.87 to 1.39), (iv) time to first seizure 0.91(0.74 to 1.12). The results suggest no overall difference between carbamazepine and phenytoin for these outcomes.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence that a significant difference exists between carbamazepine and phenytoin for the outcomes examined in this review. Confidence intervals are wide and the possibility of important differences existing has not been excluded.

Treatment of typical absence seizures and related epileptic syndromes

Typical absences are brief (seconds) generalised seizures of sudden onset and termination. They have 2 essential components: clinically, the impairment of consciousness (absence) and, generalised 3 to 4Hz spike/polyspike and slow wave discharges on electroencephalogram (EEG). They differ fundamentally from other seizures and are pharmacologically unique. Their clinical and EEG manifestations are syndrome-related. Impairment of consciousness may be severe, moderate, mild or inconspicuous. This is often associated with motor manifestations, automatisms and autonomic disturbances. Clonic, tonic and atonic components alone or in combination are motor symptoms; myoclonia, mainly of facial muscles, is the most common. The ictal EEG discharge may be consistently brief (2 to 5 seconds) or long (15 to 30 seconds), continuous or fragmented, with single or multiple spikes associated with the slow wave. The intradischarge frequency may be constant or may vary (2.5 to 5Hz). Typical absences are easily precipitated by hyperventilation in about 90% of untreated patients. They are usually spontaneous, but can be triggered by photic, pattern, video games stimuli, and mental or emotional factors. Typical absences usually start in childhood or adolescence. They occur in around 10 to 15% of adults with epilepsies, often combined with other generalised seizures. They may remit with age or be lifelong. Syndromic diagnosis is important for treatment strategies and prognosis. Absences may be severe and the only seizure type, as in childhood absence epilepsy. They may predominate in other syndromes or be mild and nonpredominant in syndromes such as juvenile myoclonic epilepsy where myoclonic jerks and generalised tonic clonic seizures are the main concern. Typical absence status epilepticus occurs in about 30% of patients and is more common in certain syndromes, e.g. idiopathic generalised epilepsy with perioral myoclonia or phantom absences. Typical absence seizures are often easy to diagnose and treat. Valproic acid, ethosuximide and lamotrigine, alone or in combination, are first-line therapy. Valproic acid controls absences in 75% of patients and also GTCS (70%) and myoclonic jerks (75%); however, it may be undesirable for some women. Similarly, lamotrigine may control absences and GTCS in possibly 50 to 60% of patients, but may worsen myoclonic jerks; skin rashes are common. Ethosuximide controls 70% of absences, but it is unsuitable as monotherapy if other generalised seizures coexist. A combination of any of these 3 drugs may be needed for resistant cases. Low dosages of lamotrigine added to valproic acid may have a dramatic beneficial effect. Clonazepam, particularly in absences with myoclonic components, and acetazolamide may be useful adjunctive drugs.

Phenytoin versus valproate monotherapy for partial onset seizures and generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures

BACKGROUND

Phenytoin and valproate are commonly used antiepileptic drugs. It is generally believed that phenytoin is more effective for partial onset (simple partial, complex partial and secondary generalized tonic-clonic seizures) seizures whilst valproate is more effective in generalized onset seizures (generalized tonic-clonic seizures, absence, myoclonus) although there is no evidence from randomized controlled trials to support this belief. The use of individual patient data meta-analysis enabled us to examine time to event outcomes which are important in epilepsy monotherapy trials, and also to examine treatment-covariate interactions.

OBJECTIVES

To review the best evidence comparing phenytoin and valproate when used as monotherapy in subjects with partial onset seizures, or generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures with or without other generalized seizure types.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Our search strategy included: (i) the Cochrane Epilepsy Group trial register, (ii) MEDLINE 1966-2000, (iii) hand-searching relevant journals, (iv) the pharmaceutical industry, and (v) researchers in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials in children or adults with partial onset seizures or generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures. Trials must have included a comparison of phenytoin monotherapy with valproate monotherapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual patient data review. Outcomes were time to (i) withdrawal of allocated treatment, (ii) 12 month remission, (iii) six month remission, and (iv) first seizure post randomization. Data were analysed using stratified logrank analysis with results expressed as hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI), where a HR>1 indicates an event is more likely on phenytoin. A test for interaction between treatment and seizure type (partial onset versus generalized onset) was also undertaken for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Data were available for 669 subjects from five trials, representing 60% of the subjects recruited into the eleven trials that met our inclusion criteria. One important limitation of these data is that in four of the five trials, for patients classified as having generalized onset seizures, tonic-clonic seizures were the only seizure types recorded at follow up, despite the fact that some patients will have been experiencing other generalized seizure types such as absence or myoclonus. Their results for the generalized seizures therefore relate only to generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures. The main overall results were as follows (HR(95% CI), HR>1 indicates a clinical advantage for phenytoin for both remission outcomes and a clinical advantage for valproate for the outcomes time to withdrawal and time to first seizure) (i) time to withdrawal of allocated treatment 1.10(0.79-1.54), (ii) time to 12 month remission 1.04(0.78-1.38), (iii) time to six month remission 0.89(0.71-1.11), and (iv) time to first seizure 0.92(0.74-1.14). The results suggest no overall difference between drugs for these outcomes. The test for an interaction between treatment and seizure type (generalized versus partial onset) was non significant for all outcomes.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

We have not found evidence that a significant difference exists between phenytoin and valproate for the outcomes examined in this review. As generalized seizures such as absence and myoclonus were counted in only one trial, results do not address the treatment of these seizure types. We found no unequivocal evidence to overthrow or support the policy of using valproate in generalized onset tonic-clonic seizures and phenytoin in partial onset seizures.

Primary Generalized Epilepsies

For pure childhood absence epilepsy (CAE), ethosuximide (ESM) remains the drug of first choice. Although valproic acid (VPA) is of equal efficacy, it is more toxic, and is reserved for those patients with accompanying convulsions. Lamotrigine (LTG) is effective as both add-on and monotherapy for CAE. If any of these three drugs fails, one of the other two can be used as monotherapy. Rarely, when ESM, VPA, or LTG does not effectively control CAE, phenytoin (PHT), primidone (PRM), and phenobarbital (PB) may be partially effective, although carbamazepine (CBZ) may worsen absence seizures. Experience is limited with the newer AEDs. Tiagabine (TGB) may induce absence status epilepticus in PGE. Oxcarbazepine (OXC) and vigabatrin (VGB) may worsen absence seizures. Felbamate (FBM) is probably effective, but is potentially fatal. Lifelong therapy is not anticipated. For juvenile absence epilepsy (JAE), VPA is the drug of first choice. LTG is also of proven efficacy. The risks of VPA-induced teratogenicity (possibly lessened by the concurrent use of folic acid) and weight gain are potentially unacceptable in young women of childbearing age. Not enough data exists on the safety of LTG in pregnancy. A combination of VPA and LTG can be used if either drug alone is unsuccessful. For juvenile myoclonic epilepsy (JME), VPA is the traditional drug of first choice in most patients. As in JAE, side effects may make VPA an unacceptable choice in many patients, especially young women. In clinical practice, TPM is being increasingly used as monotherapy for JME. Many patients appreciate the accompanying weight loss seen with TPM, but it has potentially troubling side effects, has not been well studied as monotherapy for JME, and its safety in pregnancy has yet to be confirmed. PHT and CBZ may worsen myoclonus when used alone, but they may have a role as add-on treatment to VPA, LTG, or TPM, especially when generalized tonic-clonic seizures (GTCSs) are not controlled. PB and PRM may also be useful as add-on treatment, but often have unacceptable side effects. Clonazepam may be useful as adjunctive treatment for resistant myoclonic jerks. OXC and VGB both worsen myoclonic seizures. GBP is not useful in JME and can make seizures worse. The efficacy of FBM and TGB in JME is largely unknown. Lifelong AED therapy is necessary. In epilepsy with generalized tonic-clonic seizure (GTCS) on awakening (EGA), VPA is the drug of choice, especially if other seizure types (absence and myoclonic) are present. If only GTCSs are present, then PB, PHT, and CBZ may be as effective as VPA; however, the use of PHT and CBZ may "unearth" other seizure types (absence and myoclonic) in those patients with EGA, although PB is poorly tolerated. As for JME, LTG, and TPM may both be effective monotherapy for EGA, although the use of other AEDs in EGA has not been well studied. Lifelong AED treatment is necessary.

Refractory idiopathic absence status epilepticus: A probable paradoxical effect of phenytoin and carbamazepine

PURPOSE

To compare the frequency of seizures and status epilepticus and their response to first-line drugs in patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsies receiving carbamazepine or phenytoin to those receiving other drugs or no treatment.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of all cases of idiopathic generalized epilepsies treated by the authors between 1985 and 1994. We compared seizure frequency and mean intravenous benzodiazepine dose required to control absence status epilepticus, intraindividually in subjects on carbamazepine or phenytoin before and after discontinuation of these compounds, and interindividually to subjects without treatment or receiving other drugs.

RESULTS

Bouts of absence or tonic-clonic status epilepticus and seizures in subjects treated with phenytoin or carbamazepine at therapeutic concentrations were considerably more frequent and proved intractable to treatment with valproic acid or benzodiazepines, compared with a cohort of subjects also with idiopathic generalized epilepsies, but naive to, or receiving subtherapeutic or therapeutic doses of other agents.

CONCLUSIONS

Our observations strongly suggest that therapeutic concentrations of phenytoin and carbamazepine exacerbate idiopathic generalized epilepsies. Subjects in whom absence is one of the seizure types seem at a particularly high risk for responding paradoxically. These findings underscore the value of accurate classification of seizures and particularly the syndromic approach to diagnosis and point to the potential for iatrogenic complications with indiscriminate use of antiseizure drugs.

Carbamazepine versus valproate monotherapy for epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Carbamazepine and valproate are drugs of first choice for epilepsy. Despite the lack of hard evidence from individual randomized controlled trials, there is strong clinical belief that valproate is the drug of choice for generalized epilepsies and carbamazepine for partial epilepsies.

OBJECTIVES

To overview the best evidence comparing carbamazepine and valproate monotherapy

SEARCH STRATEGY

Our search strategy included: (a) MEDLINE 1966-99, (b) The Cochrane Library 1999 issue 4, (c) The trial register of the Cochrane Epilepsy Group (d) the pharmaceutical industry.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials comparing carbamazepine and valproate monotherapy for epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

This was an individual patient data review. Outcome measures were time to withdrawal of allocated treatment, time to 12 month remission, and time to first seizure post randomization. Data were analysed using the stratified Logrank test with results expressed as hazard ratios (HR) (95% CI), where HR>1 indicates an event is more likely on valproate. A test for an interaction between treatment and epilepsy type (partial versus generalized) was also undertaken.

MAIN RESULTS

Results Data were available for 1265 patients from five trials, representing 85% of the patients recruited into the eight trials that met our inclusion criteria. The main overall results (HR 95% CI) were: Time to treatment withdrawal 0.97 (0.79-1.18), 12 month remission 0.87 (0.74-1.02), first seizure 1.09 (0.96-1.25) suggesting no overall difference for these outcomes. The test for an interaction between treatment and epilepsy type was non significant for time to treatment withdrawal and 12 month remission, but significant for time to first seizure. The age distribution of adults classified as having a generalized epilepsy indicate that significant numbers of patients may have had their epilepsy misclassified.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

We have found some evidence to support the policy of using carbamazepine as the first treatment of choice in partial epilepsies, but no evidence to support the choice of valproate in generalized epilepsies, but confidence intervals are too wide to confirm equivalence. Misclassification of patients may have confounded our results, and has important implications for the design and conduct of future trials.

Exacerbation of epileptic seizures by carbamazepine: report of 10 cases

Carbamazepine (CBZ) is an effective anticonvulsant agent. Current literature reports describe several cases of seizure exacerbation and/or EEG worsening due to CBZ with a high prevalence in children and adolescents; we report 10 new cases. Nine patients had epilepsy; one showed delayed psychomotor development and frequent EEG paroxysmal abnormalities. Four patients were on monotherapy, six on polytherapy. All but one had therapeutic CBZ plasma concentrations. Seizures increased in frequency in nine, and in eight patients new seizure types appeared, mostly absences. Cognitive functions/behaviour worsened in eight; EEG recordings showed slowing background activity and increased paroxysmal abnormalities, in six cases diffuse/generalized spike waves were seen and in two continuous spike wave discharges. The mean time of clinical EEG worsening was 1-2 days after introduction of CBZ at therapeutic doses. After CBZ withdrawal clinical EEG improvement was evident in a few days. The underlying pathogenetic mechanism is not yet understood. However, the pathophysiology of seizure exacerbation might be related to the interaction between age-related alterations in the balance of excitation and inhibition in the developing thalamocortical circuitry and the essential activity of CBZ that tends to induce interictal discharges.

Seizure exacerbation and developmental regression with carbamazepine

BACKGROUND

Unexpected exacerbation of seizures may occur following initiation of treatment with carbamazepine (CBZ). We reviewed the occurrence of such reactions in our patient population at a tertiary care children's hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of our clinic database identified 129/691 (18.6%) patients with epilepsy treated with CBZ, as monotherapy. 38/129 children were later switched to another drug. In 11/38 (28.5%) clinical and/or EEG deterioration was observed. Two patients identified at another institution with similar exacerbation were also included in our analysis. We report on the findings in these 13 cases.

RESULTS

Two groups were identified: Group I--6 patients with normal neurological exam, normal EEG background, and a diagnosis of idiopathic generalized epilepsy. Group II--7 patients with an abnormal neurological exam and/or abnormal EEG background. Following introduction of CBZ therapy, worsening of preexisting seizures, appearance of new seizure types, behavioral regression, and accompanying EEG deterioration were reported in both groups. Dramatic improvement in seizure control occurred, following withdrawal of CBZ and substitution of another anticonvulsant.

CONCLUSION

Physicians treating epilepsy must be aware that CBZ can exacerbate seizures, and cause developmental regression in children. Careful patient selection, when choosing CBZ as treatment, and prompt recognition of clinical deterioration and intervention, may help avoid or reverse these paradoxical reactions.

Aggravation of generalized epilepsies

Generalized epilepsies are treatable with a number of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) that are effective in different seizure types and epilepsy syndromes. The mechanisms of action of these AEDs are incompletely understood but include inhibition of low-threshold calcium currents and of voltage-gated sodium channels and facilitation of GABA(A) receptor currents. The mechanisms of aggravation are also unknown but could include elevation of brain GABA, blockade of voltage-gated sodium channels, and idiosyncratic toxicity reactions. Anecdotal reports suggest that aggravation of generalized epilepsy can occur with virtually all AEDs. The best-documented examples are aggravation of absences by carbamazepine and aggravation of symptomatic generalized epilepsies by vigabatrin. Therefore, the physician must be constantly aware of the problem of aggravation of seizures by AEDs. With careful diagnosis of the epileptic syndrome and an awareness of the problem, aggravation of seizures can be minimized.

Antiepileptic drugs as a cause of worsening seizures

PURPOSE

Although the paradoxical ability of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) to increase seizure activity has been recognized for decades, the underlying mechanisms are poorly understood and few systematic studies have addressed this problem. This article is intended to provide a critical review of available literature on this topic.

METHODS

Information was collected by means of computerized literature searches, screening of journals and textbooks, and consultation with colleagues. Mechanisms which potentially might precipitate underlying drug-induced exacerbation of seizures were considered based on available pharmacologic and clinical knowledge.

RESULTS

The reviewed information suggests that a paradoxical increase in seizure frequency may occur as a result of at least two separate mechanisms. The first appears to involve a nonspecific manifestation of drug intoxication; seizure-worsening in this context is usually reversible by dosage reduction or elimination of unnecessary polypharmacy. Conversely, the other mechanism may involve a distinct adverse primary action of the drug in specific seizure types or in syndromic forms. Carabamazepine, in particular, has been reported to precipitate or exacerbate a variety of seizures, most notably absence, atonic, or myoclonic seizures in patients with generalized epilepsies characterized by bursts of diffuse and bilaterally synchronous spike-and-wave EEG activity. Phenytoin and vigabatrin also have been implicated in worsening of seizures, particularly generalized seizures, whereas gabapentin has been associated repeatedly with precipitation of myoclonic jerks. Benzodiazepines occasionally have been reported to precipitate tonic seizures, especially when given intravenously to control other seizure types in patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Seizure deterioration has been reported also with other drugs; though in most cases evidence is still insufficient for meaningful conclusions to be drawn.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug-induced exacerbation of seizures is a serious and common clinical problem that is often unrecognized or overlooked by the treating physician. Its occurrence appears to be related to three possible causes: an incorrect diagnosis of seizure type or syndromic form, lack of knowledge about certain drugs that are contraindicated in specific types of epilepsies, or to prescription of excessive drug dosages and drug combinations. Further studies are required to evaluate the prevalence of this phenomenon of drug-induced exacerbation of seizures, to investigate its mechanisms in greater detail and to characterize additional prognostic factors that may be used for early identification of patients at risk.

Established antiepileptic drugs

Despite the recent entry into the market-place of a range of new pharmacological treatments for epilepsy, most patients still receive the standard antiepileptic drugs. This review considers the clinical place and practical use of these agents. Detailed consideration is given to carbamazepine, phenytoin, sodium valproate, phenobarbital and ethosuximide, with lesser emphasis on primidone, clobazam and clonazepam. Individualization of therapy, polypharmacy, refractory epilepsy, therapeutic drug monitoring, pregnancy, withdrawing treatment, epilepsy prophylaxis and referral to an epilepsy centre are also discussed. The paper concludes with a statement of 12 basic rules in prescribing established antiepileptic drugs.

Seizure-inducing effects of antiepileptic drugs: a review

Seizure-inducing effects can be observed in the treatment of epileptic patients with antiepileptic drugs (AED). This may be a paradoxical reaction (for example the increase of complex focal seizures due to carbamazepine, vigabatrin or phenytoin treatment) or a result of AED-induced encephalopathy (commonly induced by valproate in patients with complex focal seizures). A seizure increase during intoxication with AED is a rare phenomenon, thus, it is not directly related to this condition. An incorrect choice of drugs in the treatment of an epileptic syndrome or seizure type may provoke seizures (as for example the provocation of absences due to carbamazepine or phenytoin). The possible seizure-inducing effect of AEDs has to be differentiated from seizure occurrence due to the natural course of epilepsy. This may be especially difficult in patients suffering from West syndrome or Lennox-Gastaut syndrome, in whom seizure frequency may vary even without medication. However, especially in these patients, drug-induced worsening of seizure manifestation is often observed. In general, a seizure-inducing effect of antiepileptic drugs has to be considered when a seizure increase is observed soon after the initiation of therapy, when a stepwise increase of the dosage is followed by a further increase of seizures, a decrease of seizures is seen with tapering of the dosage and a renewed increase of seizures can be observed after this therapy has been reestablished. Finally, one knows that the clinical condition of encephalopathy due to valproate or carbamazepine is accompanied by seizure increase. In spite of these clinical aspects, the underlying mechanisms of seizure increase mostly remain unclear. From animal experiments it is obvious that especially carbamazepine and phenytoin may provoke generalized seizures as absences or myoclonic seizures. A seizure increase during vigabatrin therapy has been attributed to the increase of the cerebral amount of gamma-amino butyric acid, which is known to possibly exhibit inhibitory or excitatory neuronal effects. The occurrence of tonic seizures in patients with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome has been attributed to the sedative effect of the drugs; however, this conclusion is controversial. From a clinical point of view, one should consider young age of the patient, mental retardation, antiepileptic polytherapy, high frequency of seizures or prominent epileptic activity in the electroencephalogram previous to medication as risk factors for a possible seizure-inducing effect of antiepileptic drugs.